![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Industrial Tribunals Northern Ireland Decisions >> Blair v Armagh Planetarium [2008] NIIT 193_08IT (22 September 2008) URL: https://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIIT/2008/193_08IT.html Cite as: [2008] NIIT 193_08IT, [2008] NIIT 193_8IT |
[New search]
[Context]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
CASE REF: 00193/08
CLAIMANT: Francis Blair
RESPONDENTS: 1. Armagh Planetarium
2. Dr T R Mason
The unanimous decision of the tribunal is that the claimant's claims were presented outside the requisite time-limits, the tribunal declines to extend time and the claimant's claims are therefore dismissed.
Constitution of Tribunal:
Chairman: Mrs Ó Murray
Members: Mr E Miller
Mr J McDonell
Appearances:
The claimant represented himself.
The respondents were represented by Mr I Carroll of Engineering Employers' Federation.
The Claim
The Issues
(a) Whether the claimant's claim of discrimination on the grounds of sex was presented within the statutory time limits for bringing such claims contained in the Sex Discrimination (NI) Order 1976 as amended. If it was not presented within time, is it just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time to enable the claimant to continue with his claim.
(b) Whether the claimant's claim of discrimination on the grounds of age was presented within the statutory time limit contained in Regulation 48 of the Equality (Age) Regulations (NI) 2006. If it was not presented in time is it just and equitable in all the circumstances to extend time to enable the claimant to continue with his claim.
Sources of Evidence
Findings of Fact
(1) The claimant applied for the post of Education Support Officer with the Armagh Planetarium in August 2007. On 20 September 2007 Armagh Planetarium sent a letter to the claimant advising that his application had been unsuccessful.
(2) The claimant had a very strong sense of grievance about being rejected for the post from the date he received the letter of 20 September. The claimant felt that he was over-qualified for the post and could not understand how anyone could have done better than he did in the interview process. He spoke to a few family and friends about his grievance.
(3) On 15 October 2007 the claimant wrote to the first respondent asking for reasons as to why his application failed.
(4) On 25 October 2007 the first respondent replied to that letter of enquiry as follows:
"Thank you for your letter of 15 October and apologies for the delay in replying to you. You asked for feedback about your unsuccessful application for the post here at the Planetarium. I can only say that on the day there were a lot of strong candidates and you did not match their abilities and qualification. In other words you did nothing "wrong", it was just that others did it better. I wish you well in your future applications for other posts."
(5) The claimant first felt that he had been discriminated against when he received the letter in October. He felt that something underhand had happened. He felt strongly that it could be age discrimination because he felt that people prefer younger people especially in a teaching role and he suspected that it was also because of his gender. He suspected it could be sex discrimination because he did not know who had got the job and his view was that the respondent's silence on who had got the job pointed towards a female having been appointed.
(6) The claimant has suffered for many years from a chronic medical condition in the form of asthma and severe rhinal problems. When the medical condition is in its acute phase, the claimant's breathing is adversely affected and he is affected by sneezing, coughing and a continual flow of mucus and watering of the eyes.
(7) The claimant's condition was severe from September/October 2007 to the extent that the claimant asked for his specialist's appointment, fixed for February 2008, to be brought forward to December 2007. The claimant attended the specialist on the 10 or 11 December and received a steroid injection which took two to three days to take effect and, in the claimant's words, 'reinvigorated' him and meant that he could function normally for a few weeks. It was then that he thought that he could do something about his rejection for the job.
(8) The claimant has an IT teaching qualification and has also studied for a law degree with the Open University.
(9) The claimant filled in two other job application forms for posts unrelated to these proceedings, in October 2007. It took him about a week to complete them because of his medical condition. He decided not to submit the completed applications.
(10) On the claimant's copy of the letter of 26 October 2007 from the respondent, the claimant wrote telephone numbers for ACAS the LRA, the Equality Commission and noted the LRA web site address. The claimant confirmed that he had received advice from some source around that time,
that is, the end of October 2007, on how to pursue a claim. He said however that his health took precedence so he did not pursue matters.
(11) The Equality Commission wrote to the claimant on 11 January 2008 referring to a conversation the claimant had had with them on that date. The letter mentioned the strict three-month time-limit and enclosed an information pack and claim form and some suggested wording to include in the claim form.
(12) The claimant filled in the IT1 claim form on 17 January 2008 and it was presented to the Office of the Industrial Tribunals on 21 January 2008. The claimant had rung the Tribunal Office before lodging the form in early January. The claimant said that he did not know about the three-month time-limit until he was told about it by the Equality Commission in their letter.
(13) Dr McCrea agreed that the claimant has had extensive medical problems over many years and indicated that in his view the claimant was managing his condition well in that he was able to study and achieve qualifications. His view was that his medical condition would not stop him filling out a claim form.
The Law
"An employment tribunal has a very wide discretion in determining whether or not it is just and equitable to extend time. It is entitled to consider everything that it considers relevant. However time limits are exercised strictly in employment cases. When tribunals consider their discretion to consider a claim out of time on just and equitable grounds there is no presumption that they should do so unless they can justify the failure to exercise the discretion. On the contrary the tribunal cannot hear a complaint unless the applicant convinces it that it is just and equitable to extend time. The exercise of discretion is thus the exception rather than the rule."
Conclusions
Chairman:
Date and place of hearing: 12 August 2008, Belfast.
Date decision recorded in register and issued to parties: